Reinhard Tartler schrieb:
> Maybe he is referring to [1] (found via [2])?
>
> [1]
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070127-9999-1b27verdict.html
> [2]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom
for patent infringement and lost.
It seems the court also recommended invalidating that patent.
Now, that's one special patent that was questioned here. H.264 is
covered by many, many patents. Here's a list of patents that can be
licensed by paying money to the MPEG-LA:
http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-att1.pdf
All those patents (hundreds by the looks) are still in place. They're
not affected by the Qualcomm case at all.
MPEG4 is still heavily patended technology. Not only that, they're
charging actual, real fees.
Maik Merten